Anyway, somewhere in the middle of the movie, the Journalist Megan Carter (Sally Field) is talking to the Newspaper lawyer, and the man says something like this:

“If the Newspapers published only the true, the newspapers wouldn’t need lawyers, and I would be out of job…”

It is a good movie and I advise anyone reading this thread to see it.

This just to say that even if the Media are much probably worse today than in 1981, some of the moral question around the Journalists job and ethics aren’t exactly new, nor invented by the recent political cleavage in the USA (and transferred to all around the world).

I recall that the movie was written by a former editor, and following the mentioned Wikipedia article, Newman had a controversy with the New York Post.

You are rather proving the point... Your links are almost all to rather small media, with very limited following... No CNNs. or BBCs or Le Monde there... You even went as far as linking to what the mainstream media calls far right site (your first links) and several who get accused of fake news on a regular basis...

As one historian put it, sure there are flying fish.... you can find some... but they are not an accurate representation of the fish species

The only major one in your list is Europe 1..... and you need to read the article rather carefully.... It basically just points out that IS is responsible for those suffering kids (similar articles on Aleppo or some such claim that it is Assad who is responsible.... clear double standards).. And even then the illustration photo is rather innocuous (no dead or wounded kids)

Your objection is akin to "I found some nazis who did not kill jews so its wrong to say that nazis killed jews".....

Once again, flying fish are not a good representation of the fish species as a whole... Nice stalinists or nazis or KKK members are not a good representation of their respective ideologies.. A few media with a small following are not a good representation of the media...

And finally there is no "line of argumentation"... There is a list of tricks that media are known to use (and once again this does not imply that ALL media uses ALL these tricks ALL the time)

So, we have a list of tricks that the Media uses, but not all the Media uses them… these tricks are used in the social networks, but not in all of the social networks… they are also used by politicians, but not by all the politicians… they are used by politicians that say that are not politicians, but not by all the politicians that say that are not politicians… in sum… people use these tricks, but not all the people…

So, we have a list of tricks that the Media uses, but not all the Media uses them… these tricks are used in the social networks, but not in all of the social networks… they are also used by politicians, but not by all the politicians… they are used by politicians that say that are not politicians, but not by all the politicians that say that are not politicians… in sum… people use these tricks, but not all the people…

Good list and many of these are part of the media bag of tricks, notably

2. The appropriation of the language of tolerance to express intolerance.

3. Making stuff up.

4. Suppressing debate through ad hominem attack.

On this one, the Huffington Post went the extra mile: during the US presidential election campain they put the following note at the end of most their articles re the campaign

Throughout the presidential campaign, every story about Trump was capped with the following note: “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther

5. A rejection of the validity of subject specific expertise.

6. The endless repeated use of soundbites or catchy little strap lines in place of reasoned, evidence-based debate.

Throughout the presidential campaign, every story about Trump was capped with the following note: “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther

many of us use news gathering sites
their selection of stories and sources is significant.
I check Google News almost every day. I see more stories sourced from RT or Aljazeera than Fox News or Washington Times.
headline wording of course can be misleading.

So now pointing out lack of ethicds and issues in the media is "attacking the media " ??? alternatively it is "defending Trump" ?

so THIS "US election had "too much outside funding and influence" ? as opposed to other US elections ? we know this how ? because CNN keeps trumpeting about it , without ever providing any hard evidence ?

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.